Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : PSFT - Fiscal 1998 - Discussion for the next year -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gold Beach who wrote (2839)	10/18/1998 1:50:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4509

Thread, as you undoubtedly know, I have challenged LLCoolG's contentions regarding his allegations claiming that Goldman Sachs suffered huge trading losses on PSFT. In his previous posts he intimated that GSCO had a large position in PSFT and sold it off at a large loss because of some insider information that it had. I pointed out that GSCO is the largest market maker for PSFT, and would stand to benefit from large volumes because of the spread. Here is another case of GSCO down-grading a stock in which it was the largest market maker: quote.yahoo.com Note that BMCS sold nearly ten times its average daily volume on the heels of GSCO's down grade. nasdaqtrader.com And what was the rationale behind GSCO's downgrade? It cited a decrease in deferred revenues. cbs.marketwatch.com Here again, GSCO stands to make huge profits because of its dominant position a the number one market maker for BMCS. I don't follow BMCS so I am not in a position to discuss the merits of the GSCO downgrade. I am simply pointing out that GSCO stands to benefit financially from large increases in volume regardless of the direction of the movement of the stock owing of course to the bid/ask spread. TTFN, CTC